U.S. President Bill Clinton's victory in getting Congress in line on the WTO question was capped by a triumphant New York Times Op-Ed piece by him about why China should be in the World Trade Organization. There are many good reasons why, but Clinton's argument that this will "save" China and make it safe for U.S. investment fails the test. Worse, yet, Clinton employs his trademark baby-boomer spin to reassure Americans that they are in for a feel-good, commitment-free commitment.
Savoring the victory of the moment, yet anxious to secure his legacy, the president muses that "China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization . . . can be the most important development in our relationship with that country since we normalized ties in 1979."
He then falls into a condescending line of reasoning suggesting that getting China into the WTO is a U.S. victory. "By agreeing with us on its terms of entry into the WTO, China has chosen to work within the international system. By enacting permanent normal trade relations, we have validated that choice, bolstering leaders who favor cooperation, taking an emotional issue away from hardliners."